New entrepreneur squatters - Private property? Use it or lose it!

Tony Gosling tony at
Wed Oct 19 19:23:26 BST 2011

Use It or Lose It
The new just rules of our post 'occupy movement' world

Ten minure long - discussion & analysis of what has failed in society 
with the ruling class monopolising the money system so as to steal 
from the rest of us and hoarding of land by corporations and 
individuals - depriving ordinary people of their fundamental rights 
to somewhere to live, work and roam.
Plus longer 90 minute version too - not for the faint hearted!
Squatters as the new social entrepreneurs with one of the most 
important solutions to the financial crisis.

Land for Homes
Sites suitable for housing, especially in city centres, to be 
reserved for low cost homes, rather than executive mansions, office 
blocks or speculation.
We believe that a failure to protect land for low cost housing in 
city centres has resulted in significant social, economic and 
environmental disruption. Housing is forced onto greenfield sites, 
far from services and shops, city centres become more and more 
removed from us, with collapsing retail outlets and the loss of a 
sense of neighbourhood. An essential component of urban 
revitalisation is the location of housing land. So far, it seems, 
commercial considerations have outweighed all others. We would like 
local authorities to plan in favour of more low cost housing in city 
centres and fewer unaffordable homes and office blocks. We would like 
them to put more pressure on developers to release suitable land for housing.
Planning modifications to allow a limited number of "low impact 
developments" in the countryside.
Low Impact Development is designed to enable a very few, very small 
housing developments to be established in the agricultural zone 
without significantly affecting landscape values. It is a means of 
enabling poorer rural or urban people who desperately want to live in 
the countryside and, in some cases, work on the land, to do so.
Low impact homes vary greatly but are characterized by being very 
discreet, requiring next to no infrastructure and being built from 
environmentally friendly materials. At its best, it is development 
whose foundations would be impossible to find six months after it was 
The advantages are that many of those who want to participate are 
interested in making a net contribution to the landscape and local 
distinctiveness, with organic farm conversions, restoration of 
landscape features and a revival of rural craftsmanship. Such 
projects bring young people back into areas whose population is ageing.
Most importantly, they reintegrate people into the landscape. 
Intensive agriculture's inhospitability to the human presence has 
done even more to compromise rural values than its inhospitability to 
wildlife. With one or two such projects in every district - and there 
are several thousand people in Britain who are keen to participate - 
low impact development could bring back some of the local involvement 
now missing from regions whose internal economy has all but died.
Development of this kind, of course, breaks the most basic planning 
laws. But Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act enables 
planning authorities to establish agreements which could, for 
example, determine that a small low-cost house will not mushroom into 
a large expensive one, or that a solar powered development will not, 
at a later date, be connected to the national grid. Low impact 
development would be facilitated by a tightening up of S.106's 
provisions, to make it clear that a developer is firmly bound by the 
terms of any agreement, and removing the right of appeal to the 
Secretary of State.
Legitimate sites for Gypsies and Travellers, giving them authorised 
places to live, thereby reducing conflict with other people.
At the moment the provision of legitimate sites for Travellers and 
Gypsies is inadequate. There are simply not enough local authority 
spaces to go round, and planning permission for private sites is 
extremely hard to obtain, so many people camp illegally. We feel that 
a civilised and tolerant society is one in which a wide variety of 
cultures and communities can live side by side. At the moment, this 
is almost impossible in many places, as the failure to provide sites 
forces people into confrontation. We would like to see local 
authorities either making up the shortfall with their own sites 
(this, research shows, is cheaper than continued evictions, and very 
much cheaper than providing housing) or allowing travelling people to 
establish sites on their own land, in a well-ordered and regulated fashion.
+44 (0)7786 952037
"Capitalism is institutionalised bribery."

"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which 
alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung

Fear not therefore: for there is nothing covered that shall not be 
revealed; and nothing hid that shall not be made known. What I tell 
you in darkness, that speak ye in the light and what ye hear in the 
ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. Matthew 10:26-27  

More information about the Diggers350 mailing list